* [PATCH net] net: pktgen: keep device lookup under RCU protection
@ 2026-08-24 15:23 Chengfeng Ye
2026-08-24 15:38 ` Eric Dumazet
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chengfeng Ye @ 2026-08-24 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni,
Simon Horman, Chengfeng Ye, Willem de Bruijn, Nikolay Aleksandrov,
Qi Zhang, Randy Dunlap, Alice Mikityanska, Florian Westphal,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, stable
pktgen_find_dev() releases its RCU read-side critical section before
returning pkt_dev. __pktgen_NN_threads() then sets removal_mark through
that unprotected pointer.
The worker can concurrently remove the device and queue it for RCU
freeing:
CPU 0 (netdevice unregister) CPU 1 (kpktgend)
rcu_read_lock()
find pkt_dev
rcu_read_unlock()
list_del_rcu(&pkt_dev->list)
kfree_rcu(pkt_dev, rcu)
RCU grace period ends
pkt_dev->removal_mark = 1
The mutex held by CPU 0 does not cover the worker and does not delay an
RCU grace period, so the final write can access freed memory. KASAN
reported:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __pktgen_NN_threads+0x241/0x280
Write of size 4 at addr ffff88810dab804c
Call Trace:
__pktgen_NN_threads+0x241/0x280
pktgen_device_event+0x24e/0x3d0
unregister_netdevice_many_notify+0xde8/0x1ec0
rtnl_dellink+0x35d/0xa90
Allocated by task 92:
__kasan_kmalloc+0x8f/0xa0
pktgen_thread_write+0x498/0x14e0
Freed by task 0:
__kasan_slab_free+0x43/0x70
rcu_core+0x50a/0x1850
Move the existing RCU read lock into the sole caller and release it only
after setting removal_mark. The object therefore remains alive through
the dereference, while lookup order and control handling remain
unchanged.
Fixes: 8788370a1d4b ("pktgen: RCU-ify "if_list" to remove lock in next_to_run()")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <nicoyip.dev@gmail.com>
---
net/core/pktgen.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/pktgen.c b/net/core/pktgen.c
index 7f81aed46672..4fb1853589b3 100644
--- a/net/core/pktgen.c
+++ b/net/core/pktgen.c
@@ -2032,14 +2032,17 @@ static struct pktgen_dev *__pktgen_NN_threads(const struct pktgen_net *pn,
bool exact = (remove == FIND);
list_for_each_entry(t, &pn->pktgen_threads, th_list) {
+ rcu_read_lock();
pkt_dev = pktgen_find_dev(t, ifname, exact);
if (pkt_dev) {
if (remove) {
pkt_dev->removal_mark = 1;
t->control |= T_REMDEV;
}
- break;
}
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ if (pkt_dev)
+ break;
}
return pkt_dev;
}
@@ -3776,7 +3779,6 @@ static struct pktgen_dev *pktgen_find_dev(struct pktgen_thread *t,
struct pktgen_dev *p, *pkt_dev = NULL;
size_t len = strlen(ifname);
- rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(p, &t->if_list, list)
if (strncmp(p->odevname, ifname, len) == 0) {
if (p->odevname[len]) {
@@ -3787,7 +3789,6 @@ static struct pktgen_dev *pktgen_find_dev(struct pktgen_thread *t,
break;
}
- rcu_read_unlock();
pr_debug("find_dev(%s) returning %p\n", ifname, pkt_dev);
return pkt_dev;
}
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: pktgen: keep device lookup under RCU protection
2026-08-24 15:23 [PATCH net] net: pktgen: keep device lookup under RCU protection Chengfeng Ye
@ 2026-08-24 15:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-08-25 10:45 ` Paolo Abeni
2026-08-25 18:53 ` [PATCH net-next] net: pktgen: return bool from __pktgen_NN_threads() Chengfeng Ye
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2026-08-24 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chengfeng Ye
Cc: David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Simon Horman,
Willem de Bruijn, Nikolay Aleksandrov, Qi Zhang, Randy Dunlap,
Alice Mikityanska, Florian Westphal, Jesper Dangaard Brouer,
netdev, linux-kernel, stable
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 5:23 PM Chengfeng Ye <nicoyip.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> pktgen_find_dev() releases its RCU read-side critical section before
> returning pkt_dev. __pktgen_NN_threads() then sets removal_mark through
> that unprotected pointer.
>
> The worker can concurrently remove the device and queue it for RCU
> freeing:
>
> CPU 0 (netdevice unregister) CPU 1 (kpktgend)
> rcu_read_lock()
> find pkt_dev
> rcu_read_unlock()
> list_del_rcu(&pkt_dev->list)
> kfree_rcu(pkt_dev, rcu)
> RCU grace period ends
> pkt_dev->removal_mark = 1
>
> The mutex held by CPU 0 does not cover the worker and does not delay an
> RCU grace period, so the final write can access freed memory. KASAN
> reported:
>
> BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __pktgen_NN_threads+0x241/0x280
> Write of size 4 at addr ffff88810dab804c
> Call Trace:
> __pktgen_NN_threads+0x241/0x280
> pktgen_device_event+0x24e/0x3d0
> unregister_netdevice_many_notify+0xde8/0x1ec0
> rtnl_dellink+0x35d/0xa90
> Allocated by task 92:
> __kasan_kmalloc+0x8f/0xa0
> pktgen_thread_write+0x498/0x14e0
> Freed by task 0:
> __kasan_slab_free+0x43/0x70
> rcu_core+0x50a/0x1850
>
> Move the existing RCU read lock into the sole caller and release it only
> after setting removal_mark. The object therefore remains alive through
> the dereference, while lookup order and control handling remain
> unchanged.
>
> Fixes: 8788370a1d4b ("pktgen: RCU-ify "if_list" to remove lock in next_to_run()")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <nicoyip.dev@gmail.com>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: pktgen: keep device lookup under RCU protection
2026-08-24 15:23 [PATCH net] net: pktgen: keep device lookup under RCU protection Chengfeng Ye
2026-08-24 15:38 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2026-08-25 10:45 ` Paolo Abeni
2026-08-25 18:55 ` Chengfeng Ye
2026-08-25 18:53 ` [PATCH net-next] net: pktgen: return bool from __pktgen_NN_threads() Chengfeng Ye
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Abeni @ 2026-08-25 10:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chengfeng Ye, David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski,
Simon Horman, Willem de Bruijn, Nikolay Aleksandrov, Qi Zhang,
Randy Dunlap, Alice Mikityanska, Florian Westphal,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, stable
On 8/24/26 5:23 PM, Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> pktgen_find_dev() releases its RCU read-side critical section before
> returning pkt_dev. __pktgen_NN_threads() then sets removal_mark through
> that unprotected pointer.
>
> The worker can concurrently remove the device and queue it for RCU
> freeing:
>
> CPU 0 (netdevice unregister) CPU 1 (kpktgend)
> rcu_read_lock()
> find pkt_dev
> rcu_read_unlock()
> list_del_rcu(&pkt_dev->list)
> kfree_rcu(pkt_dev, rcu)
> RCU grace period ends
> pkt_dev->removal_mark = 1
>
> The mutex held by CPU 0 does not cover the worker and does not delay an
> RCU grace period, so the final write can access freed memory. KASAN
> reported:
>
> BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __pktgen_NN_threads+0x241/0x280
> Write of size 4 at addr ffff88810dab804c
> Call Trace:
> __pktgen_NN_threads+0x241/0x280
> pktgen_device_event+0x24e/0x3d0
> unregister_netdevice_many_notify+0xde8/0x1ec0
> rtnl_dellink+0x35d/0xa90
> Allocated by task 92:
> __kasan_kmalloc+0x8f/0xa0
> pktgen_thread_write+0x498/0x14e0
> Freed by task 0:
> __kasan_slab_free+0x43/0x70
> rcu_core+0x50a/0x1850
>
> Move the existing RCU read lock into the sole caller and release it only
> after setting removal_mark. The object therefore remains alive through
> the dereference, while lookup order and control handling remain
> unchanged.
>
> Fixes: 8788370a1d4b ("pktgen: RCU-ify "if_list" to remove lock in next_to_run()")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <nicoyip.dev@gmail.com>
> ---
> net/core/pktgen.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/pktgen.c b/net/core/pktgen.c
> index 7f81aed46672..4fb1853589b3 100644
> --- a/net/core/pktgen.c
> +++ b/net/core/pktgen.c
> @@ -2032,14 +2032,17 @@ static struct pktgen_dev *__pktgen_NN_threads(const struct pktgen_net *pn,
> bool exact = (remove == FIND);
>
> list_for_each_entry(t, &pn->pktgen_threads, th_list) {
> + rcu_read_lock();
> pkt_dev = pktgen_find_dev(t, ifname, exact);
> if (pkt_dev) {
> if (remove) {
> pkt_dev->removal_mark = 1;
> t->control |= T_REMDEV;
> }
> - break;
> }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + if (pkt_dev)
> + break;
> }
> return pkt_dev;
Side note: returning the RCU protected ptr outside the RCU read lock
safe, as the caller never deference it, but quite confusing.
It would be nice to follow-up on net-next replacing the return type here
with a bool.
/P
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH net-next] net: pktgen: return bool from __pktgen_NN_threads()
2026-08-24 15:23 [PATCH net] net: pktgen: keep device lookup under RCU protection Chengfeng Ye
2026-08-24 15:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-08-25 10:45 ` Paolo Abeni
@ 2026-08-25 18:53 ` Chengfeng Ye
2026-08-27 8:16 ` Paolo Abeni
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chengfeng Ye @ 2026-08-25 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni,
Simon Horman
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, Chengfeng Ye
Callers of __pktgen_NN_threads() only check whether a pktgen_dev was
found. After the RCU lookup they never dereference the returned
pointer, so returning it past rcu_read_unlock() is confusing.
Return bool instead and keep the pktgen_dev pointer local to the
RCU critical section.
Suggested-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <nicoyip.dev@gmail.com>
---
This is a net-next follow-up to
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260824152331.216494-1-nicoyip.dev@gmail.com/
net/core/pktgen.c | 17 +++++++----------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/pktgen.c b/net/core/pktgen.c
index 4fb1853589b3..9985b30c5a42 100644
--- a/net/core/pktgen.c
+++ b/net/core/pktgen.c
@@ -2024,11 +2024,11 @@ static const struct proc_ops pktgen_thread_proc_ops = {
};
/* Think find or remove for NN */
-static struct pktgen_dev *__pktgen_NN_threads(const struct pktgen_net *pn,
- const char *ifname, int remove)
+static bool __pktgen_NN_threads(const struct pktgen_net *pn,
+ const char *ifname, int remove)
{
struct pktgen_thread *t;
- struct pktgen_dev *pkt_dev = NULL;
+ struct pktgen_dev *pkt_dev;
bool exact = (remove == FIND);
list_for_each_entry(t, &pn->pktgen_threads, th_list) {
@@ -2042,9 +2042,9 @@ static struct pktgen_dev *__pktgen_NN_threads(const struct pktgen_net *pn,
}
rcu_read_unlock();
if (pkt_dev)
- break;
+ return true;
}
- return pkt_dev;
+ return false;
}
/*
@@ -2052,7 +2052,6 @@ static struct pktgen_dev *__pktgen_NN_threads(const struct pktgen_net *pn,
*/
static void pktgen_mark_device(const struct pktgen_net *pn, const char *ifname)
{
- struct pktgen_dev *pkt_dev = NULL;
const int max_tries = 10, msec_per_try = 125;
int i = 0;
@@ -2061,8 +2060,7 @@ static void pktgen_mark_device(const struct pktgen_net *pn, const char *ifname)
while (1) {
- pkt_dev = __pktgen_NN_threads(pn, ifname, REMOVE);
- if (pkt_dev == NULL)
+ if (!__pktgen_NN_threads(pn, ifname, REMOVE))
break; /* success */
mutex_unlock(&pktgen_thread_lock);
@@ -3836,8 +3834,7 @@ static int pktgen_add_device(struct pktgen_thread *t, const char *ifname)
/* We don't allow a device to be on several threads */
- pkt_dev = __pktgen_NN_threads(t->net, ifname, FIND);
- if (pkt_dev) {
+ if (__pktgen_NN_threads(t->net, ifname, FIND)) {
pr_err("ERROR: interface already used\n");
return -EBUSY;
}
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net] net: pktgen: keep device lookup under RCU protection
2026-08-25 10:45 ` Paolo Abeni
@ 2026-08-25 18:55 ` Chengfeng Ye
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chengfeng Ye @ 2026-08-25 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paolo Abeni
Cc: David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Simon Horman,
Willem de Bruijn, Nikolay Aleksandrov, Qi Zhang, Randy Dunlap,
Alice Mikityanska, Florian Westphal, Jesper Dangaard Brouer,
netdev, linux-kernel, stable
On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 6:45 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> Side note: returning the RCU protected ptr outside the RCU read lock
> safe, as the caller never deference it, but quite confusing.
>
> It would be nice to follow-up on net-next replacing the return type here
> with a bool.
>
> /P
>
No problem, the follow-up patch is just sent.
Best Regards,
Chengfeng
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next] net: pktgen: return bool from __pktgen_NN_threads()
2026-08-25 18:53 ` [PATCH net-next] net: pktgen: return bool from __pktgen_NN_threads() Chengfeng Ye
@ 2026-08-27 8:16 ` Paolo Abeni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Paolo Abeni @ 2026-08-27 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chengfeng Ye, David S. Miller, Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski,
Simon Horman
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel
On 8/25/26 8:53 PM, Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> Callers of __pktgen_NN_threads() only check whether a pktgen_dev was
> found. After the RCU lookup they never dereference the returned
> pointer, so returning it past rcu_read_unlock() is confusing.
>
> Return bool instead and keep the pktgen_dev pointer local to the
> RCU critical section.
>
> Suggested-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <nicoyip.dev@gmail.com>
## Form letter - net-next-closed
net-next pull request for v7.3 has already been merged, and therefore
the net-next tree is closed for new drivers, features, code refactoring
and optimizations. We are currently accepting bug fixes only.
Please repost when net-next reopens after Aug 31st.
RFC patches sent for review only are obviously welcome at any time.
See:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#development-cycle
--
pw-bot: defer
pv-bot: closed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-08-27 8:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-08-24 15:23 [PATCH net] net: pktgen: keep device lookup under RCU protection Chengfeng Ye
2026-08-24 15:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-08-25 10:45 ` Paolo Abeni
2026-08-25 18:55 ` Chengfeng Ye
2026-08-25 18:53 ` [PATCH net-next] net: pktgen: return bool from __pktgen_NN_threads() Chengfeng Ye
2026-08-27 8:16 ` Paolo Abeni
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox